הלכות שבועות

Although a person who took a false oath or an oath in vain is given lashes, and similarly, one who takes a [false] sh'vuat haedut or sh'vuat hapikadon brings a sacrifice, they do not receive complete atonement for the sin of taking a [false] oath, as [Exodus 20:7] states: "God will not cleanse [one who takes His name in vain]." He will not be absolved from the judgment of heaven until he receives retribution for his desecration of [His] great name, as [Leviticus 19:12] states: "[You shall not take a false oath in My name, for] you will desecrate the name of Your God." Therefore a person must be very careful with regard to this sin, more than with regard all other sins. 5:10.
The Ra'avad differs and maintains that lashes are sufficient to atone for a person's sin entirely. The Radbaz explains that the sin of taking a false oath is two dimensional, involving not only the particular transgression of taking a false oath, but also the desecration of God's name. The lashes atone for the particular transgression of the false oath, but not for the desecration of God's name. That requires more severe retribution as the Rambam explains.

This sin is considered one of the severe transgressions, as explained in Hilchot Teshuvah. 1:2. Although it does not involve kerait or execution by the court, it involves the desecration of [God's] holy name which is more severe than all other sins.

When a person takes an oath by the heaven and earth, by the sun, or the like, this is not an oath, states that it is possible that this is also the Rambam's intent, but afterwards, states that the Rambam's wording implies that such statements are not considered oaths at all.
The Radbaz writes (and this understanding is borne out by one of the Rambam's responsa) that according to the Rambam, such an oath is not binding and need not be released. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that such oaths must be released and if they are false, one transgresses the prohibition against taking a false oath. See also the notes to the following halachah. even though his intent is He who created them. Similarly, one who takes an oath by one of the prophets or by one of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, this is not an oath, even if his intent is He who sent the prophet or gave the commandments in this text.
Although these are not oaths, those who take them are subjected to a severe warning and we teach the people not to act frivolously in this manner. [Indeed,] we make it look as if these are oaths and give them an opening [to ask for their absolution] and absolve them. 2:12.

When does the above apply? With regard to other holy texts. [Different rules apply,] however, when one takes an oath by the Torah. 14b as referring to only vows (as is explicitly stated, and as is the Ra'avad's understanding) or as apply also to oaths (as the Rambam maintains). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 212:1) quotes the Rambam's view. If one takes an oath by what is written in [the Torah], his intent is by the names of God [it contains]. If one takes an oath by it without any further definition, his intent is on the parchment [of the scroll] and it is not considered as an oath. If he took [the scroll] in his hand and took an oath by it, (in his commentary to Nedarim 14b) states that the Rambam is referring to an instance where the person specifically picked up the Torah scroll for the purpose of taking an oath. Otherwise, even if he was holding the scroll in his hand before taking the oath, this law would not apply. Rashi understands the passage differently. it is as if he took an oath by what was written in it and [the matter] is forbidden.).

[The following rules apply when] a person takes an oath by the Torah without any further definition. If he is a Torah scholar, he does not need to be released by a sage. (Yoreh De'ah 212) who severely criticizes scholars who take an oath by the Torah, knowing that it is not effective to deceive the people to whom they are taking the oath. If he is a common person, it is necessary that he asked to be released by a sage so that he will not treat oaths frivolously.

When a servant takes an oath, his master does not have to compel him [to break the oath to nullify it]. 2:7). Instead, his [status] is the same after taking the oath as it was before he did so. 9:1), there is a difference between vows and oaths in this regard. The Ra'avad's statement will apply with regard to vows, but not to oaths (Or Sameach). [The rationale is that] his body is not his property for the oath he takes to be effective. With regard to oaths, [Numbers 30:3] states: "To forbid something upon one's soul." [Implied is that the verse applies to] someone whose soul is his property. It excludes a servant who is someone else's property. Thus [a servant's taking an oath] is comparable to taking an oath regarding someone else's property. 47a. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

Minors 11:1. who take an oath are not obligated [to maintain their commitment, even though] they understand the significance of an oath. [Nevertheless,] we compel them to uphold their word to train them [in the observance of mitzvot] and to impress them with fear so that they do not act frivolously with regard to oaths. If the matter concerning which they took the oath is such that a minor could not maintain without suffering injury, e.g., he took an oath that he would fast or that he would not eat meat for a long time, his father or his teacher should beat him and rebuke him, and create the appearance that his oath [took effect, but] was released, so that he will not be habituated to treat oaths frivolously.

We must be very careful with children and train them to speak words of truth without [resorting to] an oath so that they will not be habituated to swear at all times like gentiles do. This matter is tantamount to an obligation for their parents and for those who teach young children.

When one hears a colleague mention God's name in vain, take a false oath in his presence, or recite a blessing that is unnecessary in which instance [his colleague] transgresses (Mitzvah 30) states that the transgression is Scriptural in origin and the violator should be punished by lashing. This opinion is also mentioned by the Magen Avraham 215:6. From the Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Milah 3:6, it appears that even the Rambam would consider the prohibition as Rabbinic in nature. The latter understanding is shared by many other Rishonim. Their position is - as explained by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 215:3 - since he is reciting a blessing, his mention of God's name is not entirely frivolous. because he takes God's name in vain, as we explained in Hilchot Berachot, he must place him under a ban of ostracism. for a description of the implications of this ban. If he does not, he himself should be ostracized. The ban should, however, be lifted immediately so that it will not present an obstacle to others, for they will not know that he was placed under a ban. And if one would say, "Make it known that he [is under ostracism]," the entire populace will be under ban for [people] have already habituated their tongues to iniquity and oaths at all times.

When does the above apply? When the person taking this oath or reciting this blessing in vain does so intentionally? If, however, he does so inadvertently or does not know that this is forbidden, 334:18 mentions that the Rambam's view is more lenient than that of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol who maintains that this leniency applies only when one does not know of the prohibition at all. According to his view, one who knows of the prohibition, but accidentally recites a blessing in vain must be placed under a ban. [a listener] is not obligated to place him under a ban of ostracism. Indeed, I maintain that it is forbidden to place him under a ban of ostracism, for the Torah did not [prescribe] punishment for an inadvertent transgressor. Instead, one should caution him and warn him not to repeat [the transgression].

It is not only a false oath that is forbidden. Instead, it is forbidden to mention even one of the names designated for God, ch. 6. although one does not take an oath. For the verse [Deuteronomy 28:58] commands us, saying: "to fear the glorious and awesome name." (positive commandment 4) which quotes Sanhedrin 56a and Temurah 4a as deriving this concept from another prooftext (Deuteronomy 6:13 . Included in fearing it is not to mention it in vain.
Therefore if because of a slip of the tongue, one mentions [God's] name in vain, he should immediately hurry to praise, glorify, and venerate it so that it will not have been mentioned [entirely] in vain. What is implied? If he mentions God's name, he should say: "Blessed be He for all eternity," "He is great and exceedingly praiseworthy," 4:10 which states that when a person recites a blessing in vain, he should say Baruch shem kevod malchuto leolam va'ed, "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever." or the like so that it will not have been [mentioned entirely] in vain.

It is permitted to approach [a sage] to have an oath released as we explained and there is no fault [in doing so]. [Indeed,] one who has hesitations about the matter is [showing] traces of heresy. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to show care in this regard. One should not respond [to a request] to release [an oath] unless it involves a matter concerning a mitzvah or a great need. It is of great benefit for a person never to take an oath at all. 35a which explains how a woman unknowingly took a false oath and caused one of her sons to die.If, however, one transgressed and took an oath, he should endure great difficulty and keep his oath, 1:4 which states that keeping an oath or a vow fulfills a Scriptural mitzvah. Nevertheless, there is a difference between oaths and vows. As the Ra'avad (see also Hilchot Nedarim 13:25) mentions, it is desirable to have vows released. Oaths, by contrast, should be observed and not released. as [Psalms 15:4-5] states: "One who takes an oath to his own detriment and does not nullify it..., he who acts in this manner will never falter."
Blessed be God who grants assistance.